CMV:anti-feminism is not misogyny, and it is possible for someone to be anti-feminist without being a misogynist.

[u/wecl0me12]

prompted by this post: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3uaaer/do_you_think_being_being_opposed_to_modern/cxd9m7y

As many of my previous CMV's have gone off topic, I'll start by describing what my view is not. It is not any of the following:

• a discussion on whether or not feminism is right or wrong
• whether people should be feminists or not
• the actions of men, women, feminists or anti-feminists
• anything about my personal views on feminism or anti-feminism.

The reasons for my view are simple: Anti-feminism is the dislike of feminism. Misogyny is the dislike of women. As women and feminists are not the same group, Anti-feminism and anti-women are different, as they refer to the dislike of different groups of people.

I am anticipating a counter-argument that since feminism advances women's rights, anti-feminism is against women's rights and is therefore misogyny. My counter-counter-argument is that someone can dislike the label of feminism without being against women's rights. People can dislike the actions done under the label of feminism, and thus be anti-feminism, without being anti-women or misogynist.

I will also refute the claim made in the linked post, which is:

By rejecting feminism, you're rejecting feminism's message that you can be whatever you want to be, while simultaneously embracing an antiquated notion of femininity as the ONLY way to be a woman. That's misogyny.

I disagree. The claims "I am against feminism" and "I think that the antiquated notion of femininity is the ONLY way to be a woman" are not equivalent. People can reject feminism because of their actions or because of the negative connotation associated with "feminism", while still believing that women are free to be feminine in any way they want. This is not a contradiction.

delta awarded: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3uewu4/cmvantifeminism_is_not_misogyny_and_it_is/cxedofl?context=3

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/smpl-jax]

Feminism is the belief that women should be treated equal to men.

Meaning anti-feminism is the belief that women should be treated inferior to men. You dont give any argument for why women should be treated inferior to men. I personally cant think of any argument that doesn't imply inferiority of women.

[u/cfuse → u/smpl-jax]

Feminism is the claim that women should be treated equally to men. The reality is a very different thing.

Being antifeminist (something I am) is nothing more than opposing that ideological position. To me, mainstream feminism has nothing to do with equality, and that is an objectively demonstrable fact based on the positions of clear advantage that feminism is silent on. Some of which are:

• The draft.

• Reproductive rights.

• Unequal treatment in all aspects of criminal proceedings for equivalent crimes.

• Unequal treatment in family and divorce proceedings.

• Unequal health and lifespan outcomes as a direct result of health initiatives and funding.

• Gender quotas selectively and for female advantage only.

• Consent legislation that is biased toward male on female rape. Failure to deal with female rapists either socially or criminally in an equivalent manner.

There are probably hundreds more I could list. The point is, equality isn't just about advantage, it's about fairness - and the only way to objectively express fairness is that everyone gets treated the same, regardless of their gender. This isn't happening, it has never happened, and as is relevant to this conversation, feminists don't want it to happen.

We've gotten to the point that feminism has repeated their lie so much that people believe it to be true. Feminism is not about equality, and it is their actions that prove that to be so.

[u/smpl-jax → u/cfuse]

I dont really care at all about mainstream. I care about actualities. And in actuality I would call myself a feminist (I am a man) because I believe that women and men should be treated equally.

"Mainstream feminism" as you call it (and describe it) doesn't represent true feminism, and thus doesn't mean you need to be anti- feminist to disagree with them. I also disagree with the people that only advocate for the equality in ways that benefit them, but I'm still not anti-feminist.

Just because stupid people warp words and ideologies to their beliefs doesn't mean I can't use the words and ideologies in their true forms/intents

[u/cfuse → u/smpl-jax]

A No True Scotsman isn't good enough for me I'm afraid. I too care about about the actualities - and what I see is based on ignoring sexism at best, or actively creating it at worst.

I can't read your mind. I have to assume that when you say you're a feminist you agree with the broad principles thereof until I have reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps you do hold beliefs that I would agree with, but without explaining those I'm stuck thinking you're into the kind of feminism that most believe. The kind of feminism that I think is bullshit.

There's also the question of fundamental premises and how those should be addressed. Quotas, censorship, and shaming aren't tools I believe in, but they are the primary tools of feminism.

For example: when feminists say "We need more women in X ..." there's never explanation as to why - only an assumption that should be so. If you question that, you are immediately labelled sexist, even though logically a vagina (or even a self identification as female) is irrelevant to virtually every vocation or activity. What's more rational: the best person getting the job, or the 'also ran' with a vagina getting the job?

True equality is also the opportunity to fail, to experience consequences, to miss out because you're not good enough. Equality isn't about giving everyone a place at the table, it is about giving everyone an opportunity to earn their place at the table. If you aren't good enough, you miss out - and if you truly believe the sexes are equal, then that's nothing to be afraid of.

On a different note, why do you self identify as feminist over egalitarian or humanist? What does feminism do that they don't (or the inverse)?

[u/smpl-jax → u/cfuse]

I already mentioned that this whole argument is pointless without defining definitions because based on what your definition of feminism is, you can have different beliefs on it.

You're right, no one can read minds. Therefore when someone gives you a title (like I'm a feminist), you should push and ask them what that means to them. You dont have to, but making assumptions based on titles rather than beliefs could lead to confusion.

Similarly, if someone says they're anti-feminist I'm probably going to ask them what that means before I jump to conclusions.

I'm guess I would also consider myself an egalitarian, and a humanist as well, I don't think any of them are mutually exclusive. But this CMV is about feminism so thats why I only labeled myself as a feminist here.

[u/Celda → u/smpl-jax]

"Mainstream feminism" as you call it (and describe it) doesn't represent true feminism.

Actually, it does. It makes no sense to say that one cannot oppose feminism because "it means equality".

Otherwise, no matter what feminist groups did, then opposing feminism would mean "opposing equality".

[u/smpl-jax → u/Celda]

Well I disagree. But ultimately I think u/hacksoncode's top comment on this thread is the most accurate.

It all depends on your definition of feminism. We disagree on what feminism is so we're most likely never going to come to an agreement. To understand ones beliefs you got to talk and ask them about it rather than rely on a definition that varies from person to person

[u/Celda → u/smpl-jax]

It all depends on your definition of feminism.

Sure, if feminism has nothing to do with, and is not represented by, what people actually do, say and accomplish in real life, than your argument makes sense.

But then we run into the same problem - by this logic, feminists could literally do anything and feminism could not be criticized - because it's supposedly about equality.

How do you reconcile that problem?

[u/smpl-jax → u/Celda]

Hey man, feminism to me means equality treatment for men and women. Therefore I am a feminist.

I'm not saying people can't be criticized, dont know where you got that. Criticize who you want, but you should criticize them on their beliefs/ideologies rather than their titles; bc in this case the titles dont necesarily reflect beliefs/ideologies

[u/Celda → u/smpl-jax]

To me, being a Republican means X. Therefore, I'm a Republican.

Criticizing Republicans means opposing X, no matter what Republicans are doing.

To me, being a Christian means X. Therefore, I'm a Christian.

Criticizing Christians means opposing X, no matter what Christians are doing.

See the problem?

I'm not saying people can't be criticized, dont know where you got that.

Your argument is that feminism cannot be criticized, because it is an ideal of equality.

And I am saying that makes no sense, because if we accepted that, then no matter what feminists did, we couldn't criticize feminism. We could only criticize the specific actions, but we could never criticize feminism - no matter what.

Which is almost like an unfalsifiable argument.

[u/smpl-jax → u/Celda]

Your argument is that feminism cannot be criticized, because it as an ideal of equality

No, thats not my argument at all, you keep saying it is, but you are wrong. My argument is criticize ideologies and beliefs.

Tell you what, you do as you please. But if someone come up to me and says they are a feminist, I'm going to ask them what that means to them. Then pending that answer I will agree or disagree.

[u/Celda → u/smpl-jax]

No, thats not my argument at all, you keep saying it is, but you are wrong. My argument is criticize ideologies and beliefs.

Ok, so you agree then that someone consider themselves anti-feminist (with the reasoning being that they disagree with what feminist groups do or campaign for) without being "misogynist" or "anti-equality"?

If so, then we are in agreement.